If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

Phoronix: Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

For seeing where the current OpenGL driver performance stands for Intel's open-source Linux graphics driver on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors, the very latest Linux kernel and Mesa development code were tested across four different processors to stress the HD 2000, HD 2500, HD 3000, and HD 4000 graphics capabilities atop Ubuntu.

There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin; you are comparing two different CPU generations, two different GPU configurations, at different speeds, and trying to come to some sort of conclusion?

There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin; you are comparing two different CPU generations, two different GPU configurations, at different speeds, and trying to come to some sort of conclusion?

I actually think quite the opposite. Apart from the headline, the benchmark is pretty good. It would have been more of a GPU benchmark had the CPU frequency been constant, this way it is more of a "platform benchmark under gaming workload", but it's fine.

What bugs me a bit, though, is why some of the graphs have only 3 CPUs in them...

There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin; you are comparing two different CPU generations, two different GPU configurations, at different speeds, and trying to come to some sort of conclusion?

The benchmark was not intented to bench the GPU architecture itself, but a product as a whole, since the CPU+GPU are bound. If somebody wants to buy a second-hand CPU and wants to know which CPU he needs in order to play smoothly, this benchmark is useful => a CPU with a HD4000 is the minimum to play.

normal

There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin; you are comparing two different CPU generations, two different GPU configurations, at different speeds, and trying to come to some sort of conclusion?

What conclusion did you think he was trying to come to? I didn't see one anywhere.

The point wasn't to try to compare anything in particular, other than how the different hardware as a whole actually performed compared to each other. Which it wasn't too bad at - at least Michael finally threw in a few more benchmarks, like the Unigine tests, even if it was still lacking some Steam or WINE titles.

Also, the line about intel drivers not needing tweaks to run Unigine confuses me. I know it does need those tweaks the same as the other drivers, but i think they are stored in the dric file and load automatically when it detects the unigine demos. But isn't that also used by the Gallium drivers? Are the gallium drivers not getting the dric settings loaded for some reason?

If somebody wants to buy a second-hand CPU and wants to know which CPU he needs in order to play smoothly, this benchmark is useful => a CPU with a HD4000 is the minimum to play.

I don't fault Michael for not owning every Intel CPU in existence, or for comparing the GPU's in this manner (i.e. without limiting CPU speed), but I disagree that the benches are as conclusive as you infer. The benchmarks in this article only show the HD4000 paired with an i7-3770 (a quad-core, ~$300 chip). It would be really interesting to see how a Core i3-3225 (a dual-core, ~$140 chip with HD4000) fares on these benchmarks. I doubt many people are laying out $300 for an i7 and actually using the IGP for gaming...

It "ain't" gonna happen

Originally Posted by phoronix

Phoronix: Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

For seeing where the current OpenGL driver performance stands for Intel's open-source Linux graphics driver on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors, the very latest Linux kernel and Mesa development code were tested across four different processors to stress the HD 2000, HD 2500, HD 3000, and HD 4000 graphics capabilities atop Ubuntu.

I've been tracking what some major graphics companies have been doing for some time now and the state is appalling, not only for any Linux kernel based distribution, but for everyone.

First the Nvidia goes on war with that Intel graphics based on P III (amazing performance),that requires SLI by refusing the patents or license, so Intel won't compete with Nvidia in corporate segement. Intel responses to Nvidia (and thus AMD) by "attaching" the graphics to the CPU, which basically means Nvidia (and AMD) have to reverse engineer Intel graphics and the drivers (on any OS), which is illegal. That means Nvidia or AMD are forbidden to provide proper drivers for their own product, thus making them not to perform at full capabilites and always being crappy. All pictures or videos have to go through Intel CPU/GPU in the end.

That means that the Nvidia or AMD graphics are at best of a second sort. Moreover it questions the legality of their dirvers, because for example on laptops with Windows- AMD provides unassigned Intel graphics drivers inside subfolder of subfolder of their own driver. If they don't AMDs graphic will not work at all. Not only that- they cannot do it legally so they don't offer drivers for laptops on their support website. They make the vendors like HP and DELL to do that, thus making the drivers extreme old and buggy for the laptops these vendors sell. And HP or DELL are absolutely in no interest or position to change it. Why would they? The product is out and sold. The money is in the bank account. Who cares!

Moreover. It got to the point that even Windows users know now what graphic power management and sync to vblank is. It was unheard of a few years back.

Another thing is that Nvidia is not intersted in doing the drivers for any platform. First its the same stroy as with AMD: making drivers is a cost. Once GPU is out, nobody cares. Drivers do not generate sales. Only framerates and demos on computer shows/fairs. But reality is different. And they get the money elsewhere.

For example Nivia recently build a complete new system from scratch that is selling very well. It functions as a game streaming service so people can play games on thin clients and everything is rendered on that system. If they make tons of money by selling content (royalties, like 3 dollars of every game title that is rendered on that machines) they will make amazing money. So why would they need any drivers for some shitty laptops? Why would they hire bunch of programmers, when they hire two and they make the drivers for their system. The system that makes the money, not the laptops that don't. They may be selling GPUs to vendors, yes- that makes money, but the drivers don't. And once the hardware is out it does not generate any revenue stream. So why generate additional post sale cost? No f... way.

So will Linux based distros receive working graphic drvers? Ever?. No! Who cares about sync to vblank for Linux (and now even for Windows!!!). Keep dreaming about waylands, mirrs or desktop acceleration. It ain't gonna happen. Never. Linux is a post sale cost. There has never been a proper support, there always was video and desktop tearing for nvidia, complete lack of working drivers for AMD and shit for Intel working 3 times slower than on Windows and without OpenCL, wich renders programms like GIMP 2.8.x unstartable on Intel machines. Pair it with non working AMD and you're out. Not to mention VAAPIs, NVDPAUs and other stuff like renering videos on GPU. Keep dreaming.

PS. And now Linux got that amazing gift from Intel, called UEFI and awesome present from Microsoft called Banned Boot without USB. Hoorraaay!

PS 2. Tell your girlfriend/wife to install graphic drivers on Linux

PS. 3. Installing graphic drivers on Linux will definitely get you laid )

Intel responses to Nvidia (and thus AMD) by "attaching" the graphics to the CPU, which basically means Nvidia (and AMD) have to reverse engineer Intel graphics and the drivers (on any OS), which is illegal. That means Nvidia or AMD are forbidden to provide proper drivers for their own product, thus making them not to perform at full capabilites and always being crappy. All pictures or videos have to go through Intel CPU/GPU in the end.

I stopped reading right there, and no, I don't have ADD. I do, however, have a strong aversion to bullshit...